Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Open Science
Dr. Dr.Phil. Rene VON SCHOMBERG Team Leader-Open science policy coordination and development European Commission DG Research & Innovation A.6-Data, Open Access and Foresight
Open Science: a new approach to the research process
Open Science
• Based on cooperative work and new ways of diffusing and sharing knowledge using digital technologies and new collaborative tools • A systemic change to the way science is organised and research is carried out • It affects virtually all components of doing science and research, from conceptual work to publishing, from empirical research to data-analysis. • Shifting focus from "publishing as fast as possible" to "sharing knowledge as early as possible" • 2014 Public consultation on ‘Science 2.0: Science in Transition’
Notes: tiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui. Etiam rhoncus. Maecenas tempus, tellus eget condimentum rhoncus, sem quam semper libero,
Source : http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/background.pdf
Collaborative bibliographies
Analysis
Open Science
Open Science – opening up the research process
Analysis
Publication
Review Conceptualisation
Data gathering
Open access
Scientific blogs Collaborative
bibliographies
Alternative Reputation
systems
Citizens science
Open code
Open workflows
Open annotation
Open data
Pre-print
Data-intensive
4
Sci-starter.com
Runmycode.org
Impact Story
Openannotation.org
An emerging ecosystem of services and
standards
It's real!
2%
5%
10%
19%
22%
43%
Digital science
Enhanced science
Networked science
Open Digital science
Science 2.0
Open science
What is the most appropriate term to describe ‘Science 2.0’?
70%
17%
11%
2%
Do you recognise the trends described in the consultation paper as 'Science 2.0'?
Yes
Yes, but with a different
emphasis on particularelementsYes, but some essential
elements Are missing
No, not at all
11%
22%
26%
28%
32%
36%
34%
30%
43%
47%
76%
33%
40%
45%
44%
41%
39%
42%
46%
43%
43%
22%
6%
6%
3%
3%
6%
2%
6%
4%
3%
34%
22%
20%
19%
15%
16%
14%
17%
9%
7%
2%
16%
9%
6%
6%
6%
7%
4%
3%
3%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Citizens acting as scientists
Scientific publishers engaging in 'Science 2.0'
Public demand for faster solutions to Societal Challenges
Growing public scrutiny of science and research
Public funding supporting 'Science 2.0'
Public demand for better and more effective science
Growing criticism of current peer-review system
Increase of the global scientific population
Researchers looking for new ways of collaboration
Researchers looking for new ways of disseminating theiroutput
Availability of digital technologies and their increasedcapacities
What are the key drivers of 'Science 2.0'?
I totally agree I partially agree I don´t know I partially disagree I totally disagree
26%
44%
43%
43%
35%
47%
43%
46%
50%
53%
44%
32%
37%
38%
46%
35%
41%
39%
38%
35%
6%
6%
4%
6%
5%
6%
4%
5%
4%
3%
17%
13%
13%
9%
10%
10%
9%
9%
7%
8%
7%
5%
3%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
1%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Concerns about ethical and privacy issues
Lack of incentives for junior scientists to engage
with 'Science 2.0'
Lack of research skills fit for 'Science 2.0'
Legal constraints (e.g. copyright law)
Uncertain benefits for researchers
Lack of financial support
Limited awareness of benefits of 'Science 2.0 for
researchers
Lack of integration in the existing infrastructures
Lack of credit-giving to 'Science 2.0'
Concerns about quality assurance
What are the barriers for 'Science 2.0' at the level of individual scientist?
I totally agree I partially agree I don´t know I partially disagree I totally disagree
18%
21%
29%
33%
37%
41%
42%
42%
46%
40%
39%
47%
43%
41%
38%
40%
41%
37%
8%
9%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
3%
4%
26%
22%
14%
15%
13%
13%
10%
11%
10%
8%
9%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Crowd-funding an important research funding
source
Research more responsive to society through
crowd-funding
Science more responsive to societal challenges
Reconnect science and society
Greater scientific integrity
Data-intensive science as a key economic driver
Faster and wider innovation
Science more efficient
Science more reliable (e.g. re-use of data)
What are the implications of 'Science 2.0‘ for society, the economy and the research system?
I totally agree I partially agree I don´t know
I partially disagree I totally disagree
Background
7.4 7.4 6.9
6.2 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.3
4.7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Mean
rankin
g p
osi
tion
On what issues within 'Science 2.0' do you see a need for policy intervention?
Mean
Mean - std
Mean + std
Rank : the lowest need (1) to the highest need (11)
Five lines of potential policy actions
Open Science
• Fostering and creating incentives for Open Science • Removing barriers to Open Science • Mainstreaming and further promoting Open Access policies • Developing research infrastructures for Open Science • Embedding Open Science in society as a socio-economic driver
Notes: tiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui. Etiam rhoncus. Maecenas tempus, tellus eget condimentum rhoncus, sem quam semper libero,
Open Science: key issues
Open Science
• The European Open Science Cloud • Advancing Open Access and Data Policies • Alternative systems to evaluate the quality and impact of research • Text and Data Mining • Towards better, more efficient and more Open Science • Fostering Research Integrity • Making science more inclusive: Citizen Science
Notes: tiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui. Etiam rhoncus. Maecenas tempus, tellus eget condimentum rhoncus, sem quam semper libero,
Bottom-up governance Federation Legacy and sustainability Leverage of MS investment Trust
IPR and privacy protection Big data analytics Data fusion across disciplines High performance computing Data access and re-use Data manipulation and export Data discovery and catalogue
High-speed connectivity Super-Computing Data storage
Governance layer
Data and service layer
Infrastructure layer
…Long tail of science Lead scientific users…
Scale
of
scie
nti
fic a
cti
vit
y (
data
-driv
en
scie
nce)
Open Science Source: DG Research and Innovation (2015)
Governance of the European Open Science Cloud
Research organisation
Funder
Sub-unit of research organisation
Funder and research organisation
Multiple research organisations
Nu
mb
er o
f P
oli
cie
s
Policies Adopted by Quarter
Open Science Source: http://roarmap.eprints.org/
Growth of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies
Discovery Analysis Writing Publication Outreach Assessment
Elsevier
Springer Nature Digital Science
Wikimedia
Open Science Source: http://innoscholcomm.silk.co
Open Science: From Open Access to Open Scholarly Communication
Public or private initiatives at every level of the research process offering specific services to researchers
Layer of "commons"
New initiatives allowing the scholarly process to be carried out differently
Open Science Source: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/11/11/101-innovations-in-scholarly-communication/
research governance
changes
technical changes & standards
economic & copyright
changes
GOOD
OPEN EFFICIENT
Towards ‘better science’ – Good, efficient and Open Science
connected tools & platforms
no publ. size restrictions
null result publishing
speed of publication
(web)standards, IDs
semantic discovery
Re-useability
versioning
open peer review
open (lab)notes
plain language
open drafting
open access
CC-0/BY
declaring competing interests
replication & reproducibility
meaningful assessment
effective quality checks
credit where it is due
no fraud, plagiarism
Open Science Policy Platform and European Open Science Agenda
• May 2016 Competitiveness Council:
• "NOTES the establishment of the Open Science Policy Platform by the
Commission, which aims at supporting the further development of the European Open Science policy and promoting the uptake by stakeholders of best practices, including issues such as adapting reward and evaluation systems, alternative models for open access publishing and management of research data (including archiving), altmetrics, guiding principles for optimal reuse of research data, development and use of standards, and other aspects of open science such as fostering research integrity and developing citizen science";
• Commissioner Moedas will inform the Council biannually on advances of the Platform (which consist of 25 Key stakeholders-European Branch Organisations)
Optimal re-use of Research Data
• Competitiveness Council:
• 1.Make research data produced by H2020 open by default
• 2.Encourage MS to Promote data stewardship and implement data management plans
• 3.Encourage MS and Commission to follow FAIR principles in research programmes and funding mechanisms
• Follow-Up by Stakeholders, EC and MS:
• 1. As of 2017, Open Data is the default option under H2020- Data Management Plans will be mandatory
• 2. Evaluation of MS advances on Open Data will be necessary
• 3. Evaluation of MS advances on Open Data will be necessary; Expert Group on FAIR data will advise DG RTD in course of 2016
European Open Science Cloud
• Competitiveness Council:
• "CALLS on the Commission, in cooperation with Member States and stakeholders, to explore appropriate governance and funding frameworks'
• European Commission-Follow up of the April 2016 Communication on a European Cloud Initiative:
• Commission will need to have a roadmap for funding of European Open Science Cloud by end of 2016 which requires consultation of Member States.
European Commission
DSM & framework conditions for data:
• Copyright - TDM • Data Protection • Free Flow of Data • …
ERA & framework conditions for actors:
• European Charter for researchers
• Code of conduct for Research Integrity
• Charter for Access to Research Infra
• …
Open Science Policy Platform
Wide input from stakeholders:
• ad-hoc meetings and workshops • e-platform with wider community • reports and independent experts
EG on open science cloud EG on altmetrics EG on alt. business models
for OA publishing EG on FAIR open data
opinions
advice
context
European Open Science Agenda:
• OA publishing models • FAIR open data • Science Cloud • Alternate metrics • Rewards & careers • Education & skills • Citizen Science • Research integrity • …
Open Science Policy Platform
European Open Science Policy Agenda (1) Foster Open Science: Creating incentives, e.g.
• Establish an Open Science Policy Platform
• Promote best practices
• Launching a European Open Science Monitor
• Promote a discussion on evaluation criteria of research, prepare for next framework programme
European Open Science Agenda (2) Remove barriers, e.g.
• European Copyright and Data Protection revisions: foresee
appropriate exceptions for research activities - TDM
• Development of 'alternative' metrics
• Propose a European "code of conduct"
• Address low open data-skills amongst researchers and
the underuse of professional support (librarians,
repository managers etc.)
Next-generation altmetrics: responsible metrics and evaluation for open science
Flash Report
EU Expert Group Altmetrics
First release September 2016
EU expert group members
James Wilsdon, University of Sheffield (chair); Judit Bar-Ilan, Bar-Ilan University; Robert Frodeman, University of North Texas;
Elizabeth Lex, Graz University of Technology; Isabella Peters, Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;
Paul Wouters, Leiden University
Aims /1
✓assess changing role of (alt)metrics in research evaluation
✓consider how altmetrics can be developed to support open science
✓engage stakeholders
✓consider implications of metrics for: ✓diversity and equality
✓ interdisciplinarity
✓research cultures
✓gaming
Aims /2
✓examine implications of: ✓emerging social networks
✓research information systems
✓citation profiles
✓ to develop a framework for responsible metrics for research qualities and impacts for evaluation of Horizon 2020 and for wider use in the next framework programme
✓ to consider required data infrastructures
Across the research community, the description, production and consumption of ‘metrics’ remains contested and open to misunderstandings.
✓ Quantitative evaluation should support expert assessment.
✓ Measure performance in accordance with the research mission.
✓ Protect excellence in locally relevant research
✓ Keep data collection and analytical processes open, transparent and simple.
✓ Allow for data verification
✓ Account for variation by field in publication and citation practices
✓ Data should be interpreted taking into account the difficulty of credit assignment in the case of multi-authored publications.
✓ Base assessment of individual researchers on qualitative judgment.
✓ False precision should be avoided
✓ Systemic effects of the assessment and the indicators should be taken into account and indicators should be updated regularly
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/metrics/
Responsible metrics
✓ Robustness: basing metrics on the best possible data in terms of accuracy and scope;
✓ Humility: recognizing that quantitative evaluation should support – but not supplant – qualitative, expert assessment;
✓ Transparency: keeping data collection and analytical processes open and transparent, so that those being evaluated can test and verify the results;
✓ Diversity: accounting for variation by field, using a variety of indicators to reflect and support a plurality of research & researcher career paths;
✓ Reflexivity: recognizing the potential & systemic effects of indicators and updating them in response.
Ambitions for Open Science
✓ More comprehensive measurement of traditional scientific publications (eg Mendeley)
✓ Recognizing and capturing the diversity of scientific output including new forms (eg software and blogs)
✓ Opening up the whole scientific publication system (open access) and more interactive communication
✓ Opening up the very core of knowledge creation and its role in higher education and innovation (participatory science)
31
Measuring is changing
✓ What counts as excellence is shaped by how we measure and define “excellence”
✓ What counts as impact is shaped by how we measure and define “impact”
✓ Qualities and interactions are the foundation for “excellence” and “impact” so we should understand those more fundamental processes first
✓ We need different indicators at different levels in the scientific system to inform wise management that strikes the right balance between trust and control
✓ Context crucial for effective data standardization
Call for evidence /1
✓strong support for development and research of open metrics and altmetrics
✓metrics should complement not replace human judgment of quality
✓altmetrics currently not yet ready for routine use in assessment
✓EU should help develop public sector based metrics
✓diversity key criterion for metrics
Call for evidence /2
✓portfolios of metrics for societal interaction and impact urgently needed
✓open standards for data and indicator infrastructure
✓context should prevail over technical standards
✓reflexive protection against gaming strategies
✓strong support for Metrics Tide and Leiden Manifesto principles
✓portfolios of indicators to support open science
Report outline
✓Metrics: technical state of the art
✓Use of metrics in policy and practice
✓Data infrastructures and open standards
✓Cultures of counting, ethics and research
✓Next generation metrics: the way forward
More information & updates on the progress of the expert panel can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=altmetrics_eg
To conclude with some problems…
• Good Metrics for Science 'equals' good metrics for Open Science?
• -Impacts of research is becoming more important, but what is a good impact?
• -metrics can never directly measure 'impact' and 'excellence'(whatever the definition)- are metrics not more useful for what they are not created for?
• Final thesis: Responsible metrics resembles responsible research ( See Von Schomberg, 2013- A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation)
